Guardian: For their eyes only (GWB possible war crime)

[deminks]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,,1921332,00.html

New evidence clears up whether Bush sought to bomb al-Jazeera. But we are not allowed to hear it

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday October 13, 2006
The Guardian

Two men are to be tried behind closed doors in an Old Bailey courtroom in a move that will stop the public finding out whether George Bush proposed what would have been a war crime and how Tony Blair reacted. The evidence the government does not want us to hear is in an official record of a meeting in Washington in April 2004, when the situation in Iraq was deteriorating fast. The memo, it has been reported, refers to Bush's alleged proposal to bomb the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera, and is said to reveal how far Blair went in criticising US military tactics in Iraq at a time when troops were bombarding Falluja.

David Keogh, a former civil servant, is charged with unlawfully disclosing the memo. Leo O'Connor, a former Labour researcher, is charged with disclosing a classified document. The way the government went about demanding a private trial, and the arguments used by the judge to allow it, are deeply disturbing.

Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Blair's foreign-policy adviser, who was present at the Washington meeting, told government lawyers that the disclosure of the memo "could have a serious impact upon the international relations" of the UK, and was likely to have damaged the "promotion or protection" of British interests, including those of British citizens in Iraq.

Sheinwald signed a certificate necessary to persuade the judge that the trial should be held in secret before Keogh and O'Connor were charged at the end of last year. We now know that, soon after the men were charged, government prosecutors requested an adjournment of the pre-trial hearings until April 2006. They said they needed a certificate from the foreign secretary. Two weeks later Margaret Beckett replaced Jack Straw. In June she signed the required certificate. The government has not explained why Straw failed to sign one when he was foreign secretary.

[whistle]

1. Did GWB actually put cherry bombs in frogs and blow them up

...as a kid? He is a real psycho

[Marnieworld]

12. yep

and yes he is.

[stillcool]

2. the bristish are coming.....the british are coming...

K & R...

[wtmusic]

3. British citizens in Iraq? Har! Good one.

All those Brits vacationing in Baghdad might be put in danger! :rofl:

[JoFerret]

5. There are many people with British citizenship in iraq

...and not just armed forces and camp followers

[wtmusic]

6. Who? and Why?

:shrug:

[slaveplanet]

15. Britons are not citizens

They are subjects.

A monarchy is protecting our illegal president(who's father on 20, Dec 1993 was Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II: Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath.) from obvious war crimes.

My, how far the US has fallen.

[TheBaldyMan]

14. there are British citizens in Iraq, just as there are US citizens there

not only troops, who are citizens but private contractors and people working for NGOs.

[LynnTheDem]

4. If the trial has to be in secret or risk "a serious impact", then yes

G.W. bUsh proposed a war crime.

But HELLO. ILLEGALLY INVADING a nation that hadn't been doing anything to anyone IS A WAR CRIME.

In fact it's called "THE SUPREME CRIME".

[xchrom]

11. kicking your response.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. yawn...

another war crime. whoopee. :(

[stella]

8. I have to laugh,.POSSIBLE WAR CRIMES?

Bush is a war criminal and proud of it.

[Judi Lynn]

9. This is a necessary article to read. Unbearable, too.

It's hard to believe there are people elsewhere this twisted. Thought this filthy malignancy only could be found right here.

There's an interesting comment right below the article:

Krisco

October 13, 2006 07:45 AM
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the events in Iraq and Afghanstan in the last 4 years. It is worth remembering that 95% of all independent journalists (not "embedded" with the US forces) killed - be they Al-Jazeera or Channel 4 - were killed by the US forces. Nothing more need be said.

I've never heard it was THIS bad, although I knew it was goddawful.

If _Bush and his monsters ever, EVER slow down, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens when their consciences catch up with them. I expect them to self-destruct. No one should be this evil forever.

[Senator]

10. Combine this with the New UK Libel Ruling...

Law lords give media shield against libel in landmark ruling

If the journalists did behave fairly and responsibly and the information was of public importance, the fact that it contained relevant but defamatory allegations against prominent people would not permit them to win libel damages.

...

"The ruling also frees investigative journalists, authors and broadcasters to publish and defend stories without danger to their sources."

...and we may be seeing the real reason rabid urgency of forcing the War Criminals Protection Act through congress (futile as it may be).

Remember, unlike our deluded DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy, the rest of the world still realizes that any act taken to aide or abet war criminals implicates oneself in the war crimes.

Jack Straw may now be free to save himself from a trip to the Hague.

---

[DemoTex]

13. Bu$hco guilty of at least 3 of the 4 Indictments of Nuremberg

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

The Süddeutsche Zeitung announces "The Verdict in Nuremberg." Depicted are (left, from top): Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick; (second column) Funk, Streicher, Schacht; (third column) Doenitz, Raeder, Schirach; (right, from top) Sauckel, Jodl, Papen, Seyss-Inquart, Speer, Neurath, Fritsche, Bormann. Image from Topography of Terror Museum, Berlin.